In the ever-so-zippy development of the digital publishing marketplace, there's a few levels of trickery from those attempting to make a quick dollar (or euro, or pound, or whatever). There's people selling copies of public domain books for profit, which is pretty skeevy. There's people who sell cut-and-paste substitutions of other authors' books, which is a lot skeevy.
And then there's this example, which I think might be the reigning champion of skeevy behavior. Also chutzpah.
Meet Nora Roberts. You know her.
Now, meet “Nora A. Roberts.“
According to mediabistro, she's a bestselling self-published author on Barnes & Noble.
Many a romance author tweeted about the idiocy and chutzpah of whomever is behind Nora A. Roberts in the past 24 hours, but the WTFery grows apace. At the home page for the “publisher” which is allegedly comprised of “renegade authors,” Southern Pied Media, there are several more books, including some by “James A Patterson,” and a book titled “Nora Roberts: Firecracker,” which features a main character named… wait for it… Nora Roberts.
My first reaction: “You have got to be kidding me.” Are people going to fall for the middle initial? Of course. And apparently readers have, judging from the bestseller placement, and early reviews that state that the reader isn't so sure this is a “Nora Roberts” book.
Yesterday, the title and author name of “Spellbound Cafe” at BN.com was changed to Lora Roberts. That would be marginally (a very thin margin) better except that Lora Roberts is also a self-published writer of mysteries.
Great. Now there's three authors having their names misused to further sales.
This type of trickery is so galling, because it preys on readers who don't know the difference or who are reading author names on a tiny screen, perhaps, using another person's name and reputation as collateral.
But what really tops the WTFery is the entry published today on the “Southern Pied Media” site, which leaves no doubt as to their intentions:
When we decided to circumvent our publishers in order to keep the prices low and the readers happy, of course, we had to come up with pen names!
We decided to choose names similar to authors in our genre.One of us choose James A Patterson
One of us choose Nora A Roberts.
We thought it would get peoples attention, but that readers would be intelligent enough to realize that Nora A Roberts is not the Nora Roberts – as there is no “Best Selling” author titled anywhere on the book nor a list of Nora's books as you'd usually find in a Nora Roberts book.
Well! What a commotion we caused.
Our first reviews were wonderful (thank you).
Then the one star reviews drifted in “This is not a Nora Roberts book!”
I sincerely doubt they read the book, because anyone who has, is directed to this website.
While we did choose names similar to our James and Nora – our intention was to draw people into reading the description of the book, realizing it was not the splendid Nora Roberts, but a genre similar at a very affordable price point – in the hopes the description and price were tantalizing enough for a reader to buy.
We decided to make it less confusing, and changed the name from Nora A Roberts to Lora Roberts – but this just created more of a stir!
We've pulled the other 2 books we had published under the name Nora A Roberts and we'll meet this weekend to decide how to approach this situation.
If you have any thoughts regarding this – please send us an email to southernpied@gmail.com
If you read SpellBound Cafe and truly liked it, please consider leaving a review to let people know it's not the authors name that matters – it's the entertaining story that's most important. At least, I always thought so!
Of course, now we come to find out that there is another author named Lora Roberts – so there could possibly be another change!
Hold to your hats, ladies, we're in for a shi* storm!I need more pie!
Let's break that down for a moment: they chose pen names using one letter additions to extremely successful authors' names and they thought “it would get people's attention but that readers would be intelligent enough to realize that Nora A Roberts is not Nora Roberts” based on the content inside the book. But oh, darn, looks like readers are dumb.
The whole entry carries the gleeful subtext of “We're trying to trick readers, whee!”
They claim the books have been removed, but as of this writing, three titles by “Nora A Roberts” or “Lora Roberts” are still available on Amazon and BN, in addition to the Nora Roberts: Firecracker title by “G. G. Raleigh.”
Have a look at the “Customers Also Bought:”
I'm guessing that's exactly the result they were looking for.
I tend to get REALLY pissed when people insult the intelligence of romance readers, and that's what I think this person (or persons) is doing: presuming readers are stupid, ignorant, or blithe enough to purchase anything with “Nora + Roberts” on the cover, thereby earning this author a quick buck. And likely it's working for the time being.
The following is Nora Roberts' statement regarding Southern Pied's question:
Southern Pied Media asks What's In A Name when explaining why they decided to create pen names that tag onto established writers. As in Nora A. Roberts.
I'll state what's in my name. Over three decades of hard work, of writing, of building an audience, of experience. All mine. And absolutely no one has the right to use my name–with an added middle initial–to try to cash in on that.
If, as they state in the blog, it's all about how good the book is, then don't market the book, try to sell the book, by using a slight variation on an established author's name. It's insulting to all parties, which includes readers.
What they did, and may be continuing to do as far as I know with other established names, is deceptive and offensive. It's also pretty damn pathetic.
Nora Roberts
Agreed.
What recourse to readers have? You can email customerservice@BN.com, and you can contact Amazon.com customer care through their site, explaining why you find this publisher to be deceitful and what you think of their “business practices.”
And, much as I'm surprised to be suggesting this as a method of recourse, there's always the reviews. Perhaps this is a valid opportunity to One Star Bomb the crap out of the books that are still available, including:
- Wedding Jynx (by “Nora A Roberts”) at Amazon
- May Contain Magic (by “Nora A Roberts”) at Amazon
- Spellbound Cafe (by “Nora A Roberts”) at BN.com
- All The President's Friends (by “James A Patterson”) at BN.com
- All the President's Friends (by “James A Patterson”) at Amazon
-
Justice In These Bones (by “James A Patterson”) at BN.com
(Please note: there is another James A. Patterson who wrote James Robinson Graves: Staking the Boundaries of Baptist Identity. He appears to be unconnected with Southern Pied.
I struggled with the idea of suggestiong the One Star Bomb method. If you have a suggestion of how readers can better respond to this sort of predatory and utterly skeevy behavior, please do let me know. I'm still trying to figure out who the people are behind “Southern Pied,” but my hope is they'll take the books down and go elsewhere, and soon.
ETA 14 June 2012, 8:15 am ET: Well, someone did something, and I'm going to give you all the credit, k? All of the above titles except for All the President's Friends at BN.com are gone. Maybe they took them down, maybe Amazon and BN removed them, maybe the International WTFairy struck quickly, but whatever the cause, I've never been so happy to see 404 errors. The Southern Pied site is scrubbed of the content displaying and linking to books for sale, and the June 13 entry I reprinted above is gone, too (I do have screencaps, though). (You know, for decorating). Seems that this name poacher is down for now – but I'm betting this won't be the last time we see name poaching as a “digital strategy.”
Some folks asked in the comments about what to do if your legal name is similar to an already-established author. Tough call. There are a LOT of authors now. My feeling, and this is purely my own opinion unfetted by things like actual experience working in a publishing publicity or marketing house, is that it's sort of like when someone wants to be an actor, and they have the legal name of someone who is already famous. Say, “Michael Douglas.” There's already a Michael Douglas (son of Kirk Douglas, whose real name was Issur Danielovitch).
So if you're named Michael Douglas and you want to be an actor, you become Michael Keaton instead – by, ironically, using Diane Keaton's last name (whose real name is Diane Hall). Part of all this is due to Screen Actor's Guild rules, and there are no similar rules for authors that I'm aware of. But, bottom line, to avoid confusion, if your legal name is similar to an established author's name, you should go by “Michael Keaton” when you publish. Got that?
Thanks for the morning laugh, Aniko.
Here the thing, not all readers read SBTB. Not all readers go to the publishing web page before clicking other works by an author on their Kindle. This isn’t a gimmick but fraud. It’s a con, a scam, a Nigerian prince in a mobi file. Victim blaming really isn’t cute.
But hey, we are all smart here. We’re responsible for our own thought, you say. I totally agree. So here is mine. As a business woman Nora Roberts has the right to defend her business any way she chooses. Calling Scamster McTrolley pants out on their blatant ripping off of HER customers is plenty classy. What’s not classy is calling her customers idiots who deserve to be defrauded if they aren’t clever enough to play detective when Amazon pops up Fraudster McThievery’s works in an author list.
Nora Roberts didn’t get to be Nora Roberts by showing the same contempt for readers you are. She got to be Nora Roberts by dealing with the honestly and openly even when people suck.
Still say, much ado about not much at all. I think you all should just relax. You too, “Nora.”
Putting this case aside, which seems a blatant effort to garner sales, there are writers among us with common names, for whom this stirs up all sorts of trouble. I was horrified to google myself as a Jackie Larson, published non-fiction career guide author in 2006 – The FabJob Guide to Become a Party Planner, my first book – and discover there was someone else with the same name who had previously published books (good ones) with the same name. While I’m not sure she’s still actively writing, she must have fumed that I was trying to hone in on her brand and trading on her good name. In fact, the opposite was true – I need to distinguish myself as a writer, so having people confuse us is of no benefit. I even had a magazine I did a piece for casually stick a tag line after my article that listed some of HER books. At last count there were five women writing things with some version of my name. For several years, this caused me to write all articles as J. Louise Larson (first initial) (middle name) (last name.) But then I went to a paper that wanted me to use the same byline as the name people would ask for when they call me. Aargh. So now I’m Jackie L. Larson. Sigh.
Maybe Aniko’s pen name is E L Jams. Though that sounds more like a hiphop DJ.
Nora, when I found out about this I was so angry I couldn’t type or talk. I had to take a day to calm down. Anyone who would do this is not a writer or author or anything but a thief. There’s got to be a legal recourse for this!
By the way, I still like Yaks.
Becky Brunson Swope
Oh, basic pot stirring. My bad. Carry on as you were “aniko”
Ok, first, I can’t tell if I’m feeding a troll or you’re in earnest, here.
Second, the “Nora” posting is Nora Roberts.
Third, I’m so completely baffled by your point of view. You blog online and at “Heroes and Heartbreakers,” and as bloggers, our reputations are built on our names. By your argument, if a few folks got together and started a blog called “Heroes ‘n’ Heartbreakers” and copied your design motif or the titles of your entries, that would be ok.
It absolutely would not.
Whether you’re stealing someone’s work and putting your name on it, or stealing someone’s name and putting it on your work, it’s theft. As writers, online or off, it’s like treason.
Aniko, the “Nora” posting here IS Nora Roberts. Just so you know. She has more class than most of us could ever hope to have, and a work ethic that puts me to shame on a regular basis, and although she doesn’t need me to come to her defense I have to say she also doesn’t need your sarcasm and disrespect.
Identity theft, no matter how it happens, is never “not much at all”. And in this case, it’s not only taking advantage of Ms Roberts, but her also her readers and fans, whom she values and cares about. In her position, I wouldn’t “relax”, either.
Yes, I do blog there. And my comment here was in earnest. The thing is, for this to truly be theft, this little publisher would have to be actually trying to deceive IN FULL. That is to say, it would have to be attempting to pull the wool over our eyes without letting us know what it’s doing. But the publisher isn’t doing that. He/She/Whatever is doing a stunt by saying ‘look how nervy I am, I’m trying to fool you.’ By definition, this can’t be a lie. Liars don’t tell us that they’re trying to fool us; imps do.
I understand the whole honest in advertising thing. I hate it when sneaky manufacturers try to sell poorly made products that look like they are coming from quality manufacturers. People can get hurt seriously, I mean in regards to health and safety. No one here is going to get hurt in that way. Not even Nora. (And, yes, I believe it’s really Nora; I looked into it.)
So, again, can we not save our outrage for something truly egregious. We have a responsibility to be respectful of different opinions, as bloggers and people. But we also have a responsibility to be respectfully HONEST (sorry for the caps, just mean to emphasize, not yell). We can’t push a conversation forward by all saying the same thing, no matter how much we love an author. And the things I said were valid for discussion. I think you might see that if you took a breath and stood away for a moment. The fact that people chose to respond with name-calling and hyperbole is not a reflection of the legitimacy of my comments; it reflects their passions, instead.
Susanna, as much as I love your work, I have to say that I it’s a bit over-the-top and off-base to say I showed disdain for someone whom I acknowledged is a great in the field. I do think a calming down is in order, from you as well, if you actually think I was disrespectful and sarcastic. I have probably been one of the least sarcastic people on this forum. The simple difference is that I disagree with what’s been said here. I don’t doubt the work ethic of Nora Roberts. How could I? It’s been well-documented that she produces tons of bestsellers and has great respect for her fans. As far as the ‘class’ statement, maybe I should have used the word ‘dignity’ which I’m sure you’ll find fault with,too. The point is that a great big fish in a big pond need not worry about tiny little guppies, and a simple statement would have reflected that greatness.
One more thing, this isn’t really identity theft, which is, indeed a very big deal. This was a stunt by people who knew full well they wouldn’t get away with it. That was their plan, provocation. It worked.
The point you’re missing is that she is not worried about her career. Sarah is not worried about her career. Everyone commenting is concerned about deceived consumers – everyone but you (or us?) You say –
“Liars don’t tell us that they’re trying to fool us; imps do.”
This is dismissive of the defrauded and laughs off the fraud. They reveal it on their web site, but that is not the point of purchase, that is not where the consumers are buying their product. Their disclaimer is not one of prankery but of short sighted rear covering.
“We have a responsibility to be respectful of different opinions”
Yes. But you’re wrong. Possibly deliberately, but wrong. Cosigning is not required for respectful discourse. I respectfully point out your contempt for the consumer.
“There are times, believe it or not, when the reader is actually responsible for some thought.”
Places the blame on the consumer for being deceived when deceptive practices are actively being deployed.
“I have to say that I it’s a bit over-the-top and off-base to say I showed disdain for someone whom I acknowledged is a great in the field.”
Really? I guess calling her statement surprising & saying she’s lowering herself while suggesting how she could be (in our eyes) classier isn’t disdainful.
In my actual name (Meoskop – see, i disclosed it! I am just imping!) and my current look at me because I want you to name (aniko) I’m not a particular fan girl, but I dislike intellectual dishonesty almost as much as inept trollery. Since I can’t quite decide what lane we’re in, I’m driving all over the road.
Won’t someone think of the pedestrians?
EVERYBODY: DRINK!
So, again, can we not save our outrage for something truly egregious.
I think you’re missing the point that here, in this space centered around books/authors/publishing, this IS a big deal. Outrage is both called for and justified.
And as Disney would no doubt agree, the bigger you are, the more you have to fight to safeguard what you have because there’s more up for grabs for those seeking to cash in on your hard work.
You seem to want Nora to relax and turn the other cheek; she writes romances, not a Zen version of the Bible.
This is one of my points. You don’t need to practice zen to see that people’s passions are overblown here. Meoskop is barely coherent in her last paragraph. And, please forgive me, but I do believe readers are capable of discerning one name from another, at least with the basic buyer beware skills we use when being consumers of information or products.
And, Meoskop, I said readers are smart and can tell the difference in my first comment. That is clearly not contempt.
And it’s certainly not about protecting a career. Nora Roberts – as I said implicity, but still very clearly – need not worry about such things. That is why I think less would have been more in her response. If she were a fledgling writer, then I could understand being so upset; there would be a potential for great confusion as she tried to establish her name. Happily, that is not the case here.
Sorry, I don’t know what “imping” is. I do know that imps try to make mischief, which is what I was accusing the publisher of. I hope you understand that.
Oh. It’s intellectual dishonesty. I thought we were playing and I got excited. See, now I have this saliva covered tennis ball and now we have nothing to do with it. Sad. Backpedaling is awesome if it engages the brakes, but sometimes it just spins the wheels.
Although my being barely coherent is my second laugh of the day. We’re funny! Oh wait, I’m imping. You’re funny. God, I’m so confused. What am I going to do with this rabbit now?
The great big fish in the big pond can easily starve to death if the guppies consume all the food in that pond (and being the astonishingly prolific creatures that they are, they could very well do just that). Even a bestselling author has to keep drawing readers old and new in order to stay at the top. When a counterfeiter turns a customer away, that harms the original author. That just cost him/her a new customer as surely as the sales of counterfeit clothes, bags and electronics cut into the profits of the original manufacturers and designers. Writer, designer or manufacturer—they all expended time and effort developing their respective products and it’s no small thing when others use chicanery to make money off their hard work.
Authors who treat their writing as a business are always going to try and attract new readers. They have to if they want to keep their writing profitable. Even companies with brands that command huge customer bases can’t take for granted that those customers will stick with their brands forever. Hence the need to replace old customers who drift away with new ones. Unfortunately, counterfeiters like the would-be authors mentioned above derail that process.
If a reader new to Nora Roberts accidentally buys the counterfeit work instead, doesn’t realize it isn’t a true Nora Roberts book and finds it wanting, she may decide not to try another of the real Nora’s books. And she could very well spread the word that Nora’s work isn’t good. Those are potential lost sales right there and a failure to add to her reader base in anticipation of some of that base naturally eroding over time and circumstances. Furthermore, when you add up all those lost sales, small as they may appear in any one venue, they can come to a pretty hefty sum. No business owner worth his or her salt is going to take a hit to their bottom line sitting down.
So, no, I don’t think it’s much ado about not much at all. Not if you’re the author whose reputation and profitability are at stake. And certainly not if silence or tolerance of deceit and thievery encourages others to do the same.
OK, I’m calm 🙂 And it’s not that I don’t understand your point about having a discussion that involves different opinions. It’s a valid point.
But I stand by my opinion that this is deliberate identify theft, for the purpose of profit. And I do not agree that the plan of this “little publisher” was provocation. You’re being too kind.
I believe their plan was a simple one: To con as many of Nora’s (and James Patterson’s) readers as they possibly could, for as long as they could before getting found out; then, as con artists have always done, to pull up stakes and move on in search of the next easy mark. This kind of con doesn’t work with so-called “little fishes”. That’s why they didn’t use “Susanna A. Kearsley”. It only works with big-name authors who have built a huge and loyal following willing to buy whatever they write. And the inclusion of the “A” initial isn’t done to be transparent, it’s done to protect their own arses in case of a lawsuit.
These are not writers. And this is not a publisher. These are crooks, who are trying to prey upon readers. If somebody ever did that to my own readers, I’d be livid. And I’d likely come out swinging.
You’re only getting away with this drunken master troll routine here because I’m Dear Author’s troll, not Smart Bitches’.
But I’m watching you. I’ll be ready if our paths cross again one day.
Aniko, I remain confused as to your argument.
You appear to be saying:
– the use of one author’s name to deceitfully sell your own books is not a big deal, which I disagree vehemently with, and have explained why.
– Nora Roberts shouldn’t defend her name, and again I disagree with you. Anyone who works hard on a book, whether it’s their first or 5000th, should defend their work, full stop.
– Your statement that, “The point is that a great big fish in a big pond need not worry about tiny little guppies, and a simple statement would have reflected that greatness,” implies that Nora Roberts is too big and too successful to respond directly to someone using her name, which I don’t understand. If you burgle my house, it’s theft. If you burgle Bill Gates’ home, it’s still theft. The relative prominence of the person being poached or stolen from is irrelevant.
– readers aren’t going to be tricked by the name poaching, except that they have because clearly this “author’s” books sold enough to hit a bestseller list compiled only from self-published authors, of which there are thousands.
– we’re all overreacting and saying the same thing, and apparently should be having a discussion which you would like to provide. Yes, we are pretty much in agreement that deliberate theft and poaching of an author’s name is deceitful and wrong. Sometimes, though it is rare, many of us in the romance community online are in agreement. It happens.
But by telling us we’re all overreacting and saying we’re “over the top” is condescending, and isn’t providing a discussion. It’s baiting.
Thank you, Susanna. I appreciate everything you’ve said.
But I think that when the storm clears and most of the commenters here take a look in the light of day at what they’ve written, they will be mortified at the gang-up-bully mentality with which they’ve approached my comments. I’m not a bully or mean. I’m actually shaking as I write this from nerves. I don’t understand why people are so mean, and you guys really are. Please forgive for saying the following because I know youl’ll find fault in this, too, though it’s meant sincerely and with no double meaning: please go back and read my original comment. You’ll find the answers to your questions and criticisms there. Sarah, just read it again and I’m sure you won’t be so confused. This is not contempt; this is a plea to actually read what I wrote and think before pounding angry words out. I’m signing off.
Sigh.
Calling everyone a mean bully isn’t the way to go. If you’re shaking, sign off. This isn’t heated discourse and there is no light of day to be had. You keep insisting people are angry as if they don’t know their own emotions. Mean looks different and so does bullying. If you feel my using your name was bullying – maybe that’s the point.
I know how emotionally fraught these discussions can get, and I’ve been in some doozies over the years, but no one’s dogpiled on you, just countered your points with ones of their own. On a kerfuffle scale of one to ten, this barely registers.
If being told people disagree with you has left you this upset, in all sincerity and zero sarcasm intended, I’d lurk more, comment less.
Or write out a scathing screed to relieve the tension—then hit ‘delete’. It’s surprisingly cathartic.
I’m pretty sure the FTC doesn’t care about your distinctions. Creating confusion by using a name that is very similar to a trade name (and Nora Roberts is a trade name) falls under the deceptive practices umbrella. The FTC also doesn’t care whether the harm to the consumer is intentional or unintentional, potential or realized in making its determination. There just has to be a reasonable possibility of the confusion occurring.
I’m sorry that you are shaking from the negative response to your position. But you came to a site that takes plagiarism, infringement, and misappropriation very seriously and put forth an opposing viewpoint that belittled and trivialized the concerns of those with whom you disagree. I’ve read all your comments. I am willing to believe that you have no idea how you come across.
Anika, I read what you wrote. In it you said I lowered myself, implied I could’ve been classier. That poaching from me was no big deal—I shouldn’t worry about it. And, in later posts, leaving it be would have shown greatness. You said everyone should relax, including me—with my name in quotes. Even though everyone disagreed with you, and many went over your points with rational, clear-cut arguments.
You put the responsibility on the reader when it was a deceptive practice by the author/publisher, which was actually working for a short window.
I’ll say again, I not only feel I have the right, but the responsibility to protect my name, professional reputation, work and readership—and potential readership. You can certainly disagree, but you’re pushing it by advising me to calm down.
If you’re indeed shaking, maybe you should take your own unsolicited advice.
Posters at SB are not The Borg—in fact I’ve rarely seen a thread where there is so much agreement on a subject. That alone ought to make you think. And I’ve seen threads where some posters turn into mean bullies. This sure hasn’t been one of them.
Nora
Ok Sarah, I’ll take that drink now.
Again, Aniko, the bottom line. No one has the right be Nora Roberts other then the real Nora Roberts. The A. in between notwithstanding.
There is no Nora A. Roberts, so no matter you look at it, they were trying to use the real Nora Roberts name to make money. If you look at it this way, I’ll write a book, and make my name Nora Robert or JRS Ward. Everyone of us can do this and sell books because people just assume that book sellers are honest people and at a glance may buy the book by mistake. Unfortunately, no one is giving them their money back.
You say it isn’t theft, maybe not, but it is dishonesty, it is fraud. I can never understand how anyone can justify this.
Lastly….Hi Nora 🙂
Oh, Susanna. Don’t underestimate yourself; you’ve been on my auto-buy list since I read (and recommended to everyone I know) The Winter Sea. 🙂
You know, I’ve read through the comments. I’m not emotionally involved, but I do love Nora Roberts’ books (the real Nora Roberts, that is) and I admire her work and regret that she has to fight to keep it.
And for those who think it isn’t a big deal, think about this – counterfeit goods (think Louis Vuitton or Coach bags) are confiscated and destroyed when whichever regulatory agency is responsible finds them. These counterfeits may not cut into sales of the real article, but they’re shoddy imitations and, anyone buying one who doesn’t realize they’re fakes will have a negative impression of the brand name. So if someone buys a “Nora A Roberts” book and thinks it’s badly written, then they’ll look at the shelves (and shelves) of real Nora Roberts books and turn their noses up at them. And it may be yet another way denigrators can say that romance novels are trash, since they read the fake one and yet the real one is selling lots and lots of books.
Heehee! 5 points!
By the time I was tweeted the title saying “Nora Roberts is self-pubbing now” the display cover had only fuzzy fuzzy ROBERTS, you couldn’t make out a Nora or Nora A. But I was in a hurry and get all my book recommendations from my Twitter friends so for $1.99 I thought, what the hey! When I found out the scan, I got on help/chat at B&N, and while the rep and I are chatting, we discover that the book, Spellbound Cafe is no longer listed. So I got a refund, which is against B&N’s policy for eBooks, but I got it anyway. That will go on Ms. Nora A. or Lora’s stats, won’t it!!! BTW, awful formatting and lots of typos (I’m an ebook designer/formatter, I check those things on every eBook I read)
For what it’s worth, Rob Siders is right – some google fu and careful checking of the cache links Laura Freed to this whole thing. She’s been real careful about editing all mention of those titles out of her blog, but the cached version still exists (and screenshotted for posterity).
I can’t figure out what she writes. And she seems to be snooker loopy, as least to my Irish sensibilities.
Nora, I hope you sue her into the ground.
I’ve been following along but didn’t comment at first because I agreed with the sentiment of the first 110 or so commenters and didn’t feel I had anything special to add.
But, now, FWIW, I’d like to chime in and say that I think Nora Roberts’ response was very classy and dignified and entirely an appropriate and proper reaction to the appalling behaviour of Southern Pied Media and its ilk.
You are kidding, right? Just trying to stir some shit around here?
Because it’s not who it was done to, is the act itself that is pathetic and, yes, despicable.
Thinking you’re just as crazy as the “renegades” to take on anybody on this site. But that’s just fine. I’ll sit back and laugh my arse off over it. 😛
I generally don’t post here (but read it every day! Love this site!), but I just have to say…You just HAVE to be kidding me!
Aniko? Honestly? What in the world are you smoking? You freely admit to not reading the “real” Nora’s books, but you’re insanely passionate about your point. That makes me think you are either the dumb-ass who started this, or you’re just crazy. Either way you don’t get to bash OUR Nora. Not right, not cool. We don’t like you so go away!
It can only be a good thing to be badmouthed by so many stupid people.
Sorry. I saw Jen’s comment and thought that such a, yes, classless display neeeded to be called what it is. But she’s really just channeling most people here. Nora, why in the world are you so proud of these nitwits?
I realize that sometimes a new author’s real name is similar to that of someone already established. That’s a different matter but should be handled carefully by the new author. He/she might later regret being confused with someone else.
In the case of a deliberate tag-on person, this is fraud toward the reader (in my opinion) and a theft of an author’s reputation. While it might be a passing annoyance for Nora Roberts—not that she isn’t entitled to be outraged—it could have even more serious consequences for someone like me. I’ve sold 93 novels, but I’m far from a household name, so someone buying poorly written copycat works might judge me by them. I take my reputation so seriously that I’m purposely killing off half a dozen of my earliest books (from the 1980s) that aren’t up to my current standards.
Having recently posted digital editions of my Regencies along with some mysteries, romantic comedies and paranormals, I feel vulnerable to someone trashing my reputation with inferior books. Folks, it’s fine to pick an attractive pen name (I use my middle name, Diamond), but don’t cheat or trick people. Low tactics like this only make enemies and may very well come back to haunt you.
One thing—perhaps among many—that you’re missing here, “Aniko,” is that Nora Roberts isn’t just defending herself, her career, and her readers. She doesn’t need to do any of those, as you so clearly stated. But ingrate that you are, you don’t seem to recognize that she’s also defending MYself, YOURself, OUR careers, and ALL readers.
Today the scammers went after Nora Roberts. Tomorrow it might be Kathleen F.(sic) Woodiwiss. Or Danielle Steele(sic). Or Julie(sic) Quinn. Or Linda L.(sic) Hilton.
It IS a big deal. A very big deal. Only a very small person wouldn’t be able to recognize that.
If, iyo, it’s no big deal, everyone’s over-reacting (and mean to you), we should all be talking about something more important (though this issue IS the topic of this thread), and absolutely no one agrees with you, why are you posting?
If everyone here is stupid, a nitwit, why are you wasting your time?
If my behavior, in your view, lacks a certain class and dignity, and I agree with the opinion of mean, stupid nitwits—and appreciate their support and comments in this matter, why are you further wasting your time on anything to do with me?
You’re only upsetting yourself, it appears, at this point. Which is kind of a stupid nitwitty thing to do over something that doesn’t even matter to you.
Nora